In the past few weeks since the Gaza and Lebanon invasions began, I’ve been inveighing against George Bush’s ineffectual response to the mass mayhem. I thought it was sheer ineptitude a la Hurricane Katrina. But with U.S. veto of a Lebanese government call for a cease fire in return for deployment of the Lebanese army in the country’s south, I wonder whether there may not be more far-reaching and sinister purposes. One of the reasons these doubts come to mind is that Lebanon’s prime minister, in offering to deploy army troops in previously Hezbollah-held territory, has satisfied a prime demand of both Israel and the UN. What more could the U.S. want from Lebanon before supporting a ceasefire? Return of the kidnapped soldiers? How can Lebanon return hostages it doesn’t hold? Bush and Israel’s negative response to the Lebanese proposal smells fishy to me. It’s clear to me why Israel would not want the war to end. But it is unclear to me why Bush wouldn’t.
Everyone in the media talking about this crisis notes that Hezbollah is a Syrian and Iranian proxy. But no one is saying that Israel may be a U.S. proxy. Not that Israel is doing on our behalf anything it doesn’t want to do. But may we not be advancing our own foreign policy objectives in confronting Iran through Israel’s bloodying of Lebanon and by extension Hezbollah? Are we allowing Israel to fight the first phase of a proxy war against Iran in much the same way that the Nazis used the Franco forces in the Spanish Civil War both as a proxy and as a stepping stone to a much greater conflict to come? And if there is any truth here (and this is all educated conjecture on my part), then the second phase of this conflict could be a direct confrontation between Iran and the U.S.
Sy Hersh has been all over the story of the Bush Administration’s preparations for military action against Iran. His latest, Last Stand, came out earlier this month in the New Yorker. Now, with Hezbollah attacking Israel and Iran’s fingerprints all over the action could Bush be hoping to use Iran’s complicity as yet another excuse for war (or at least air war)?
Blogging the Middle East actually first planted this idea in my head when I read this:
Fouad al Sanyura just made a public statement accepting to send the Army to the border (Israel’s initial and continuing demand throughout the raids) and called for immediate cessation of air raids and a ceasefire through the UN. This was (of course) categorically rejected by Israel, which said it will continue to pound Lebanon. Make no mistake, this is not about the 2 soldiers…nor is it about HezbAllah. This is part of the Bush administration’s Greater Middle East Initiative, and this explains the “strange” U.S/British silence that many people I have been talking to have observed…
The point is, and I don’t think anyone in this stupid ignorant world can deny it anymore, Israel’s intention from day 1 was not the recovery of the kidnapped soldiers, nor deterrence (what deterrence?), nor the elimination of HezbAllah. As I said HezbAllah is still operating freely in the south…
He doesn’t flesh it out entirely but given the confusion of facing Israeli aerial bombardment and one’s home shaking to its very foundations, it’s no wonder that it may be hard to complete a thought or two.
The neocons have wanted a war with Iran for a long time. One wonders whether the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal see Lebanon as a golden opportunity to fiddle around with that notion to see what “fruit” it may bear. If there is any truth in this then the deeply cynical policy treats Lebanon as the innocent victim of a proxy war between two stronger powers. Lebanon is caught in a brutal auto da fe and the U.S. and Iran are the torturers turning the screws.
All I can say is for shame if any of this is true.
The neocons have wanted a war with Iran for a long time.
Neocons think Iran is an Islamic threat while it is not true. The Islamic threat is all over rather in Iran only. In the past, neocons coudn’t get rid of Communism and it still exists. They are using the same tactics against Islam and coming up with the same crappy plans which they used against the USSR. I dont think they could be successful.
BTW, nice article.
Richard, I can’t agree more. Sad as it all may be.
Unfortunately, the answer to all your rhetorical questions is “yes.” Neither the US nor Israel (I mean the governments of course) want peace. In fact, just the opposite — they are terrified of peace. With any reduction in tension, people might ome to their senses and boot them out. As for Iran, I don’t believe they are ny real threat. It’s all trumped up hysteria by the neocons who are desparate to try and start WW III in the Middle East. Do ANY of our co-religionists, especially here in the US, understand what kind of maniacs are ruling Israel AND the United States right now? Sometimes I wonder.
Just finished reading the Hersh article (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060710fa_fact) on the understated war between Bush and the generals over Iran and Iraq and other, more internal issues. The good news is very good, indeed– though we are accustomed to stereotypes about military thinking, some generals and analysts in the Pentagon now seem quite capable of learning from their mistakes and (equally important) the mistakes of others. A few, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Pace, have challenged Bush and Cheney on a number of their assumptions, and in the process have won tactical victories here and there.
But it will take more than reluctant generals to contain Bush. The messianic zeal driving this civilian commander-in-chief is delivered in continuous briefings by neocon tutors who assert nothing less than dispatching Iran is the key to geopolitical salvation for America. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush is ill-equipped with the intellectual assets to appreciate the wisdom of advice from Cheney, Wolfowitz and others, and still has not absorbed even the lessons he should have mastered before entering the presidential race in 2000. Eight full months into office, having spent most of his spare time plotting (with tutors) against Saddam Hussein, Bush was interrupted by the inconvenient news the war on terror had started without him, and had nothing to do with Saddam.
Bush never has shaken the paranoia which seized him, and which drives his misguided policy in Iran and Iraq and his megalomania at home (NSA spying). Though Bush seemingly cannot get enough information, he is at best a scrambling opportunist, and cannot distinguish the wise from the unwise, the good from the bad. Bush has absolutely no sense of history– despite his claim to admire Churchill– and worse, no understanding of politically complex situations. He simply leaves these as “issues” to be handled by others for him. As an example of the limited dimensions of Bush thinking, his decision to make his favorite adviser (with academic grounding in political science, but no professional background in diplomacy) the Secretary of State rivals proposing Myers as a justice of the US Supreme Court.
Bush has little sense of the power he wields or his responsibility for it. In October, 2005, Bush exploded at members of his own party who met with him to make the case against spying on Americans without court approval– an act patently illegal and the caliber of mistake not seen since Nixon tried to stonewall his way out of Watergate. But what Bush said next took everyone’s breath away. “Quit throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s nothing but a GD*&&# piece of paper! Incredibly enough, the event was underreported through pressdom because it was tantamount to Bush shoving his hand into his coat like Napoleon, and declaring himself emperor. It showed a dangerous emotional self-indulgence at the expense of others, and a narrowed intellect in imoments of stress that could imperil millions. With little patience for obstacles or impenetrable subjects, Bush might officially outsource the presidency, if he could. His critics insist he effectively did so long ago. Like his father, Bush wants to “be” president without any of the understandings and labor this might involve.
Beside this “wannabe” president, we have Ahmadinejad, another pol who was not given a great chance at winning his presidential race, either. Ahmadinejad bears many surprising similarities to Bush– both have traditionalist military, political and religious constituencies. Both are street-level pols who like to connect with crowds of supporters, but who have little understanding, sympathy or time for critics or different points of view. Both like the flourishes of public speaking (even if crafted by others), and the emotional buttons available to them– but must be carefully and continually kept safely away from impulsive speech. Bush dislikes open sessions with the press for the same reason Ahmadinejad does, and argumentive, emotional ranting is always close at hand. Both Bush and Ahmandinejad are reflexive nationalists, and consider the world their personal stage.
Here are two leaders entering a situation fraught with challenge and risk to the whole world, whose only qualification is to lead a cavalry charge. Perhaps it is not too late to explore colonization of Mars– and put Bush on the first mission.